Obrazy na stronie









In the canon law we find the following recognition of the first eight councils, which was formerly required to be made by every Bishop of Rome upon his appointment.

“ Sancta octo universalia Concilia, id est, primum Nicænum, secundum Constantinopolitanum, tertium Ephesinum, quartum Chalcedonense, item V. Constantinopolitanum, et VI. Item Nicænum, VII. Octavum quoque Constantinopolitanum usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare, et pari honore et veneratione digna habere, et quæ prædicaverunt modis omnibus sequi, et prædicare; quæque condemnaverunt ore et corde condemnare profiteor.”—Decret. 1. Pars. Dist. xvi. $ 8.

But here it is to be observed, that the Liber Diurnus, from which this professes to be an extract, dates A.D. 715, many years prior to the deuteroNicene council. The mention, therefore, of this council, and the 8th of Constantinople, is an interpolation. The truth of this is clearly seen in the Liber Diurnus itself, a work which, after it had been, as Cave observes, (Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 620, cited by Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. ii. 510), diu suppressum, diu desideratum, was at last published by Garner the Jesuit, in 1680. That part of it which relates to the councils has been re-published by the learned Routh in the work above referred to; and an extract from it will be found above, page 25, note (h). At what time the interpolation or addition took place it is not easy to ascertain, further than that it had not taken place in 862, nearly a century after the celebration of the deutero-Nicene council. In that year we find Pope Nicholas I. in the council at Rome, on occasion of passing sentence of condemnation against Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, recognizing only six. Hæc et his similia contra evangelica .... afferens, sit Dei omnipotentis et beatorum Apostolorum principum Petri et Pauli et omnium simul sanctorum, atque venerandorum sex universalium Conciliorum auctoritate, necnon et Spiritus Sancti per nos judicio, omni sacerdotali honore et nomine alienus. (Conc. viii. 287.) The Roman champions would fain have us believe that only six are here mentioned because there was no correct translation of the decrees of the deutero-Nicene at Rome! “Sex dumtaxat Synodos æcumenicas citat ideo, quia

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

acta septimæ Synodi Romæ extantia, ita ex Græco male reddita et translata habebantur, ut quantumvis ea ab Hadriano papa I. ejusque successoribus probata et confirmata essent; posteri tamen non eodem præconio, titulo nimirum æcumenico eadem prosecuti fuerint, &c.” (Conc. viii. 774, 775.) As if during the lapse of a century there had not been time and opportunity for obtaining correct translations of the decrees of a council which had called forth the indignation of the Western Bishops, who, individually and collectively, had joined in condemning it; as will be seen below in the notes to the Table of Councils. But to let this folly pass. It is clear that up to 862 the deutero-Nicene synod had not been added to the General Councils to which, in the profession of faith, according to the Liber Diurnus, every new Pope was required to declare his adhesion. Whenever the addition was made it was not without complaint; for in the notes to the Canon Law, vol. i. p. 18, Paris 1687, we find one of Contius (who edited the Antwerp edition, 1570) upon the extract in question, in which he cites from Ivo to this effect. Contra falsam septimam Synodum. Septima Synodus quomodo dicitur, quæ non concordat præcedentibus sex universalibus Synodis?

It would appear from Mabillon's notes (Museo Italico, p. 35, cited by Routh, as above, p. 511,) that the Liber Diurnus has long been obsolete (penitùs obsoletus). An attempt was made at the council of Constance, and again at Basle, to revive the profes

« PoprzedniaDalej »